- Citation:
- Wright v. Owens Corning, Case No. 11-2026 (3d Cir. May 18, 2012) (Precedential)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- AFFIRMING in part and REVERSING in part judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed its test for defining a claim in JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010), but held that those claims that arise under Grossman’s, related to bankruptcy cases with plans confirmed prior to the Grossman’s decision, are not subject to discharge because a retroactive application of Grossman’s violates procedural due process. The Court also extended Grossman’s test for determining whether there is a claim to include post-petition, pre-confirmation injuries, but also held that this portion of its holding would not be applied retroactively.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal of summary judgment granted in favor of Owens Corning (“Owens”) by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based upon the District Court’s determination that plaintiffs’ claims had been discharged in Owens bankruptcy case.
- Facts:
- In October 2000, Owens filed for chapter 11, and in November 2011, the bankruptcy court set a claims bar date of April 15, 2002. A bar date notice was published in several national newspapers, identifying as included in the claims needing to be filed, those claims arising from defective roofing shingles. On September 26, 2006, Owens plan of reorganization was confirmed by the bankruptcy court, and Owens was granted a discharge. Notice of the plan and the confirmation of the plan was also published in national newspapers. In November 2009, years after Owens received its discharge, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Owens seeking damages related to defects in roofing shingles manufactured by Owens prior to the bankruptcy filing. Subsequent to the confirmation of Owens plan and after plaintiffs’ filed their complaint, the Third Circuit issued its opinion in JELD-WEN, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In re Grossman’s Inc.), 607 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2010) thereby overruling its decision in Avellino v. M. Frenville Co. (In re M. Frenville Co.), 744 F.2d 332 (3d Cir. 1984), and established a new rule for determining whether a party holds a “claim” under the bankruptcy code.
- Judge(s):
- Rendell, Ambro and Nygaard
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
